Judge dodging Shelby County Commission redistricting squabble

'The court doesn't want to get involved in this'

"The county has got to skin its own skunk," lawyer Ronald Krelstein told the judge. "And if it doesn't, your honor is going to have to skin the skunk for the county."

Chancery Court Judge Arnold Goldin made clear Friday that he's in no mood for skunk-skinning. "The court doesn't want to get involved in this," he said.

In other words, the judge is not eager to take part in the process of drawing new Shelby County Commission election maps. For now, commissioners will keep working on the maps. If they can't reach an agreement, Goldin might eventually have to decide the case.

The commission members missed a Dec. 31 deadline to use new census data to adjust districts for the 2014 elections. They have split on the question of how many representatives would come from each district. Factions in recent weeks have lined up in support of maps based on three-member districts, two-member districts and single-member districts.

The choice could influence whether incumbents get reelected, how much territory a commissioner would represent, and how citizens interact with their representatives. It is likely to influence the future makeup of the County Commission, a 13-member board that sets county property tax rates and controls a budget worth more than $1 billion.

The factions have crossed common dividing lines such as party, race, or urban vs. suburban interests.

County Commission members are already scheduled to restart the redistricting debate at a public meeting Wednesday.

Friday's hearing in Chancery Court was related to a lawsuit that commissioners Walter Bailey, Mike Ritz and Terry Roland filed as private citizens against the County Commission and county government shortly after the deadline passed.

Bailey was the only commissioner present in court and discussion focused on the status of a fourth commissioner, Steve Mulroy.

Mulroy had filed a motion to intervene in the case, saying that no one else in the lawsuit would advocate as forcefully as he would for a map comprised entirely of single-member districts.

Mulroy's lawyer in the case, Bruce Kramer, argued to Goldin that Mulroy should be treated as a defendant, in part because Mulroy doesn't want to be adverse to Shelby County.

Whether or not Mulroy counts as a plaintiff or a defendant in the case has some consequences. The county is a defendant and hired Krelstein as its representative. When Krelstein briefed commissioners in a closed-door session recently, Bailey, Ritz and Roland had to leave because they're suing the county.

The judge ruled that Mulroy would be treated as a plaintiff, like Bailey, Ritz and Roland.

"I think he can advocate from that position for whatever plan he wants to advocate for," Goldin said. Goldin then brought the lawyers into his chambers for a closed-door conference.

Mulroy said he respectfully disagrees with the judge's decision, but said he's not sure he can legally appeal it now. He also said that he hopes to be able to attend the sessions with Krelstein now that his motion has been denied.

Bailey told the judge Friday that he, Roland and Ritz are supporters of the map known as 1F, in which there are six districts with two members each and one with a single member.